Pendergraft v. C.H.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pendergraft v. C.H.

225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896921, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2017

DocketCase 5D17-49

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 So. 3d 420 (Pendergraft v. C.H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pendergraft v. C.H., 225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896921, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an order freezing their assets in proceedings supplementary filed below. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

An order freezing assets for further determination of the ownership right to those assets is in the nature of an injunction. TJ Mgmt. Grp., L.L.C. v. Zidon, 990 So.2d 623, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). When an appeal is taken from the entry of a temporary injunction, Appellants cannot raise arguments that should have been, but were not, raised at the hearing in the trial court. See id. at 626. However, here, the trial court failed to require Appellee to post a bond, a ministerial act. See Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Mander ex rel Mander, 932 So.2d 314, 315-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that trial court cannot waive' bond requirement nor can bond be nominal); Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cozart, 561 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“A trial court must require the mov-ant to post an injunction bond before it enters a temporary injunction.”). Though the circuit court, can determine the appropriate amount of the bond after hearing evidence from all-parties, the court is without discretion to determine whether to set bond in the first place. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

For these reasons, we affirm the order freezing Appellants’ assets, but remand for the trial court to determine an appropriate injunction bond.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. ,

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an order freezing their assets in proceedings supplementary filed below. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

An order freezing assets for further determination of the ownership right to those assets is in the nature of an injunction. TJ Mgmt. Grp., L.L.C. v. Zidon, 990 So.2d 623, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). When an appeal is taken from the entry of a temporary injunction, Appellants cannot raise arguments that should have been, but were not, raised at the hearing in the trial court. See id. at 626. However, here, the trial court failed to require Appellee to post a bond, a ministerial act. See Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Mander ex rel Mander, 932 So.2d 314, 315-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that trial court cannot waive' bond requirement nor can bond be nominal); Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cozart, 561 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“A trial court must require the mov-ant to post an injunction bond before it enters a temporary injunction.”). Though the circuit court, can determine the appropriate amount of the bond after hearing evidence from all-parties, the court is without discretion to determine whether to set bond in the first place. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

For these reasons, we affirm the order freezing Appellants’ assets, but remand for the trial court to determine an appropriate injunction bond.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. ,

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896921, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendergraft-v-ch-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack